Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[marksjeep]

I'd like to see the hunters get a civil suit filed for harassment, if it has not already been.

Can they sue both the ranch and the manager, separately?

Are there any criminal charges for hunter harassment in wyo?

 

[VikingsGuy]

They're doubling down and what really bothers me is the way the county seems to be taking sides.

If I felt like this case is going to get a fair shake, I'd say it's a good thing and Fred is just making the eventual decision even better for us. But, I worry about whether it will be decided by an unbiased person and I worry that Fred will pile on so much that the bowhunters bow out and find a settlement with no decision. I, for one, will continue to be willing to donate legal fees if they stick with it.

The important issues will be finally decided upon appeal so as long as defendants make a good “record” for that purpose I am not too worried about local court.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'd like to see the hunters get a civil suit filed for harassment, if it has not already been.

Can they sue both the ranch and the manager, separately?

Are there any criminal charges for hunter harassment in wyo?

Yes they can sue ranch and manager each personally, but as an employee, the ranch will likely defend on the manager’s behalf as well.

 

[BuzzH]

A couple things that are probably needed to be said.

As to the civil suit filed by Fred Eshelman, total scare tactic to make the hunters back off. Its speculation, but he and his stable of attorneys may know the criminal case is going to not end favorably. The other speculation, is that the civil suit was retaliation from the subpoena of the BLM lease agreements. Seems Eshelman doesn't like to be subpoenas...oh well.

Also, the 4 defendants will only need to be defended by a single attorney if the civil case moves forward.

Finally, from talking with the 4 defendants last week, the day they learned of the civil suit against them, their attorneys are thinking federal court.

I believe this is where its quickly starting to head.

As to the deputy DA wanting trespass to hunt...good luck with that one. Same dude appears to not want to harassment charges brought against Grende. Glad he works for the citizens of Wyoming. I think election time for the County Attorney may be unkind.

 

[338win]

If there is another gofundme

 

[TOGIE]

yeah now is the time to get serious. if we can get 10,000 people to give 25 more bucks... or 50, or 100....

yeah leftovers should go to conservation but hell these bowhunters should get some leftover just for having to go through this bullshit.

why in hell is the prosecutor agreeing to add trespass to hunt? i didn't know prosecutors were that easily swayed. is eshelman that good looking? or jsut that rich?

how do we run this guy out of town?

 

[VikingsGuy]

yeah now is the time to get serious. if we can get 10,000 people to give 25 more bucks... or 50, or 100....

yeah leftovers should go to conservation but hell these bowhunters should get some leftover just for having to go through this bullshit.

why in hell is the prosecutor agreeing to add trespass to hunt? i didn't know prosecutors were that easily swayed. is eshelman that good looking? or jsut that rich?

how do we run this guy out of town?

Either he is a shill for one landowner, or he too wants clarity and is adding this to get actual court resolution in place of an AG opinion letter that is not actually binding on anybody. Don’t know him, so can’t judge motive — but I will say, not charging hunter harassment in this case does give me some guidance as to his drivers.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The other speculation, is that the civil suit was retaliation from the subpoena of the BLM lease agreements. Seems Eshelman doesn't like to be subpoenas...oh well.

Kudos to the defense team for this angle - the public has a lot of power over these ranchers via BLM leases - maybe its time to flex a little public land owner muscle.

 

[seeth07]

I like the detail about the special use permit. If the hunters file a suit for harassment, could their permit get removed and not allow them to guide on the blm land?

The other speculation, is that the civil suit was retaliation from the subpoena of the BLM lease agreements.

Buzz, are you or something else here versed enough on how this would play out to speak to my question about it?

I could see how only being able to outfit/guide on every other section without the ability to do so on the public BLM would really rub him the wrong way. And if the ranch was harassing the owners while they were on this BLM, it sure does seem fit to revoke the special use permit for x amount of years.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, are you or something else here versed enough on how this would play out to speak to my question about it?

I could see how only being able to outfit/guide on every other section without the ability to do so on the public BLM would really rub him the wrong way. And if the ranch was harassing the owners while they were on this BLM, it sure does seem fit to revoke the special use permit for x amount of years.

Could be a couple issues at play.

Nobody knows what type of "guiding" is really going on with that place. Is he just taking friends? Is it for profit on the private? Landowners do not need an outfitting license to guide hunters on deeded ground, but when they start hunting public then permits are required.

There is also the issue of the responsibilities of the BLM's requirements on permitting. Its started to get interesting to say the least.

I think this guy is of the stripe that believes he can do what he want, where he wants, when he wants. If he doesn't get his way, he'll unleash his stable of attorneys on you...well, maybe he picked the wrong fight here. I think public land owners are just flat tired of being bullied and they want access to land that many private landowners are using, rent/tax free at the rest of the public's expense. Its fundamentally wrong, IMO.

I believe the subpoena triggered the reaction the defendants attorneys wanted and expected. I'm not privy to every move the defendants lawyers are making, but so far, it appears that everything is calculated.

Finally, this is quickly getting out of my wheelhouse other than providing updates and meeting with the defendants. We do this to make sure that everyone that donated to the gofundme is kept in the know, and to make sure we're doing all we can to support these guys, as well as make sure it hits the press.

The more light that we shine on this issue, the better the odds of some sort of resolution.

This is worth fighting for and we have not a thing to lose.

 

[seeth07]

We do this to make sure that everyone that donated to the gofundme is kept in the know, and to make sure we're doing all we can to support these guys, as well as make sure it hits the press.

I couldn't honestly agree with you more here.

Imagine this scenario: A group of hikers from the Sacramento area go on a hike just outside of the area and they corner cross a vineyard/public land intersection to enjoy the public lands on the other side. They camp for a week and this spot just happens to be the vineyard's owners little honey hole to fill his deer tag every year and is pissed because they interrupted his hunt when we took the week off from work. The vineyard owner does exactly what Mr. Eshelman is doing. Can you imagine how different the publicity and public outcry would be in that scenario?

 

[Deepnsteep]

This is worth fighting for and we have not a thing to lose.

I agree it's worth fighting for, but we have the legal grey area to lose.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The conversation when public landowners start to act like owners:

Mr. Grende, "Do you know how much land my boss owns?"
Public Land Owner, "No, but I do know we own 785 Million Acres"
Mr. Grende, "But do you know how much money my boss has?"
Public Land Owner, "No, but we have so much money we literally print it" (which may not be so good for other reasons)
Mr. Grende, "I'm calling the Sheriff"
Public Land Owner, "We are going to cancel your BLM leases"
Mr. Grende, "I'm going to get the state to cut non-res hunting licenses"
Public Land Owner, "Then it might be time for us to make animals on US land, a US asset and not a provincial one"

All the power is in the hands of the public if they would just have the will to use it. Kudos to these defendants and to BHA for finally calling BS on all the phony threats. In MN the push to plant corn on marginal land was resulting in a significant loss of wetlands and a major uptick in river pollution. MN legislature passed a bill providing some basic setbacks to minimize the problem. Before the vote farmer groups came out and said that if that happened they would no longer give permission for folks to hunt pheasants on their land and tried to get local PF groups to speak against the bill. PF and the legislature called BS on this and passed the bill 5 or 6 years ago. No one is aware of a single pheasant hunter who was denied access to hunt since. Time to call BS in the west too.

 

[BuzzH]

I couldn't honestly agree with you more here.

Imagine this scenario: A group of hikers from the Sacramento area go on a hike just outside of the area and they corner cross a vineyard/public land intersection to enjoy the public lands on the other side. They camp for a week and this spot just happens to be the vineyard's owners little honey hole to fill his deer tag every year and is pissed because they interrupted his hunt when we took the week off from work. The vineyard owner does exactly what Mr. Eshelman is doing. Can you imagine how different the publicity and public outcry would be in that scenario?

This issue is about way more than hunters and anglers.

I'm reading more all the time from a lot of people that don't hunt or fish, but also want access to their public lands.

The narrative needs to shift from this being about 10% of the population that hunts, and more about 340,000,000 public land owners.

The sooner this shift happens, the more that the public will get access to their public lands.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree it's worth fighting for, but we have the legal grey area to lose.

Most people are too afraid to corner cross now...what's there to lose?

 

[seeth07]

This issue is about way more than hunters and anglers.

I'm reading more all the time from a lot of people that don't hunt or fish, but also want access to their public lands.

The narrative needs to shift from this being about 10% of the population that hunts, and more about 340,000,000 public land owners.

The sooner this shift happens, the more that the public will get access to their public lands.

Yup bingo, that was exactly where I was going. Overall US hunting and angling percentage is quite small but get the hikers, backpackers, skiers, etc. on board and raising a stink about this, all of a sudden it's a powerful force. I was just pointing out that if this started from the events of a hiker, especially in the peoples republic of CA, it would have got there way faster.

 

[Deepnsteep]

Most people are too afraid to corner cross now...what's there to lose?

Most but not all. If the courts decide on either or both of cases in favor of the anti corner crossing perspective, then it will severely limit a legislative approach. Not to mention collaboration.
This is really starting to look like it's all or nothing. I donated to the cause and agree with everyone on here about how bad we need clarity on the issue and I'm glad someone's bringing this issue to light for people to understand the issue and to fight for what we think is right. But the caution is that this may very well not end in our favor.

 

[Cornell Cowboy]

Most people are too afraid to corner cross now...what's there to lose?

I donated because I would really like to see a resolution on this issue. But I do think there's something to lose. In particular, if the parcel in question is a State section, the irritated landowner can just purchases the section outright. As an example, see the Old Elk Ranch purchase east of Laramie for $1.5M precisely because the landowner didn't like the public legally accessing the parcel. The State didn't balk, they just allowed the auction to proceed because from a money generating perspective, it's always in the interest of the State to sell off its sections rather than try to make much less money with grazing fees. So I do worry that we could lose existing accessible State parcels in retaliation for this -- the legislature is not particularly concerned with public access as much as revenue for the State and the benefit of existing stakeholders that make up the legislature.

To me the absolute best-case scenario is that the ruling goes in favor of public access, which forces the large landowners with really deep pockets to push for land swaps to consolidate public and private ownership parcels. But the worse case it that we remove the gray area in a manner that formally blocks public access AND landowners to all they can do to simply purchase public land. In theory, they could push for land sales now, but I don't think enough corner crossers have motivated most of them to pursue this -- as you say, most people are too afraid to corner cross now. That could change...

 

[BuzzH]

I donated because I would really like to see a resolution on this issue. But I do think there's something to lose. In particular, if the parcel in question is a State section, the irritated landowner can just purchases the section outright. As an example, see the Old Elk Ranch purchase east of Laramie for $1.5M precisely because the landowner didn't like the public legally accessing the parcel. The State didn't balk, they just allowed the auction to proceed because from a money generating perspective, it's always in the interest of the State to sell off its sections rather than try to make much less money with grazing fees. So I do worry that we could lose existing accessible State parcels in retaliation for this -- the legislature is not particularly concerned with public access as much as revenue for the State and the benefit of existing stakeholders that make up the legislature.

To me the absolute best-case scenario is that the ruling goes in favor of public access, which forces the large landowners with really deep pockets to push for land swaps to consolidate public and private ownership parcels. But the worse case it that we remove the gray area in a manner that formally blocks public access AND landowners to all they can do to simply purchase public land. In theory, they could push for land sales now, but I don't think enough corner crossers have motivated most of them to pursue this -- as you say, most people are too afraid to corner cross now. That could change...

Its why we also have been vigilant on keeping track of State land sales, exchanges, and purchases. Access and recreation is already last on the list of the state land board. I would recommend staying in touch with your County Commissioners regarding accessible State lands, I do and they're largely going to fight hand in hand with recreationists.

Plus, there is legislation introduced by Western, to give more notice to the public about all State land deals.

I've heard threats all my life about landowner retaliation, its all been a bunch of BS.

Time to quite hiding under the bed living in fear of what MIGHT happen, while you're getting steam-rolled.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

Most people are too afraid to corner cross now...what's there to lose?

Exactly, who wants to end up in criminal and civil court for a year or more.....